Peninsula enterprise. [volume] (Accomac, Va.) 1881-1965, 1887-12-10
Prohibition Sustained in Kansas.

WASHINGTON, Dec. ga very
important decision, and one likel.
70 he far reaching in it's consequent
ces was rendered by the United
States Supreme Court to.Gay II
the so called Kansas prohibition
cases of Muglcr against the State
Of Kansas, and the State of Kan
sas against Ziebold and others
The Judgment of the court was
pronounced in long and elaborate
opinion by Mr.. Justice Harlan, who
said: '-The general question in
each case is whether the prohibit
tinn statutes Of Kansas are in con
! hict with the clause of the four
teenth amendment which provides
that mo State shall make or en-.
force any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities OF
citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person
of his life, liberty or property with
ont due process of law That leg
islation by a State prohibiting the
manufacture within her limits OF
intoxics ting liquors TO be there
sold or bartered for general use as
beverage does not necessarily in
fringe any right. privilege or i'm
munily secured.b y the constitution
of the United States is made clear
by the decisions OF this court rem
dered before and since the adop-
ton of the fourteenth amendment.
1t is, however, contended flat, al
though the State may prohibit the
manufacture Of intoxicating liquors
tol sale or barter within her limits
for general use as a beverage, no
Convention or Legislature has the
right nnderorr form Of government
10 prohibit any citizen from manu-
featuring for his own use or for eX
port or storage any article Of food
or drink not endangering or at
iecting the rights of others. Ii
will be observed that the PROPOSE
ton and the argument made in sup
port OF it equally concede that the
right to manufacture drink for
ones personal use is subject 70 the
condition that such manufacture
does not endanger or affect lie
rights of others. If such manufac-
tme does pr.judicially affect the
rights and interests of the commu-
nifty, it follows, from the very prem
Uses stated by counsel, that society
has the power to protect itself by
legislation against the injurious
consequences of that business. But
by whom or by what authority is
it to be determined whether the
manufacture of particular articles
of drink either for general use or
tor the personal use OF the maker
will injuriously affect the public?
Power to determine such questions
so as to bind all must exist some
where, else society will be at the
mercy of the few. who regarding
only their own appetites of pas
sionS, may be willing to lmperilthe
peace and security Of the many.
provided only they are permitted
to do as they please. Under our
system that power is lodged with
the legislative branch OF the gov
eminent. 1t belongs to that de
partment to exert what are known
as the police powers of the State.
1t must determine primarily what
measures are appropriate or need
lul for the protection of the public
morals, the public health or the
public safety. There is here no
justification for holding that the
State under the guise merely Of
police regulations Is aiming to de-
prive the citizen of his coDstitu--
Lional rights, for we cannot shut
out of view the fact, within the
knowledge Of ;lll, that the public
health, the public morals and the